6

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is indeed public domain so you are free to use that character. However, a lot of what we think of as "Frankenstein" is not Mary Shelly, for example, the iconic Frankenstein look dates from the 1931 film which may still be under copyright. You can use elements that are public domain, you can't use elements that aren't.


5

There isn’t a legal restriction Which is to say they could show replica’s if they wanted to; they just don’t want to. This is fairly typical - art museums display art, not reproductions of art. They also tend to be interested in displaying the art they have, not telling the life story of the artist.


5

It doesn't work, just like transferring the copyright to a young person to make it last longer doesn't work. In places where the length of copyright depends on the death of someone, it always depends on the death of the author. You can transfer copyright, but you can't change who is the author. If I write a book, and some copyright law says the copyright ...


4

It is reasonable to interpret the statement in their Github repository README.md as a "public domain" license for anything contained there. However, their "usage guidelines" backpedals a bit ("generally are not copyrighted", the misleading implication that content used commercially is subject to restrictions that educational and personal uses are not subject ...


4

Under Swedish copyright law, a work such as a movie is protected for 70 years after the death of the "creator". It is unclear who the copyright holder is, but it has not been 70 years since the film was made. Unless it was explicitly "released into the public domain", it is still protected, so you can get sued.


3

Copyright still exists even if you don't know who owns it In this particular case, however, the copyright has expired - UK copyright lasts for 70 years after the last author passes away. For a death in 1918, copyright expired on 31 December 1998. For other cases where the author was still alive in 1940 (for this year - 2020) but has since passed, the ...


3

The opera may be in the public domain, but unless the performance is from several decades ago, which I assume is not the case, the performance is not in the public domain. The video therefore has copyright protection of its own. The use to which you want to put the video does not sound like fair use to me, although as the other answer notes that's ...


2

The standard answer is, there is a concept of Fair Use under which one might legally copy stuff. But it is impossible to definitively determine whether a particular use would be found to constitute fair use. In lieu of permission, you can (1) take your chances or (2) hire an attorney to give you a detailed analysis based on the specifics of the case and then ...


2

Your disclaimer is unlikely to carry much value. If the law says you are right, the disclaimer doesn't help. If the law says you're wrong, the disclaimer doesn't help either. The correct disclaimer probably would have been along the lines "Any opinion publicised is the opinion of its author, and may or may not reflect the opinion of the ThisSite.pt." At ...


2

They have copyright in their additional text, and possibly in things like their visual design choices (fonts, layout etc). They may also have introduced a few deliberate typos to detect any literal copies from their version (rather as mapmakers add a few imaginary features to their maps). None of this creates any rights to the original text. You are still ...


2

Maybe Copyright subsists in "original works"; this leads to the concept of the Threshold of Originality. The case law is long and varied both by time and jurisdiction. If I hand-write a verse of Shakespeare, can I claim copyright on my manuscript because my handwriting is original? In the UK in the early-20th century, yes; Walter v Lane is on ...


2

No. The dead are generally not considered legal persons. They have no rights, and cannot own property, make contracts, sue, and so on. Giving them copyright would make as much sense (legally) as giving your rights to Niagara Falls. (Even if you could give copyright to a dead poet, it wouldn't help. As gnasher points out, copyright usually runs for 70 years ...


2

What should I answer to person that ask about using PD (CC0) clipart as logo or if he can trademark it? “Consult your trademark lawyer.” You can also direct them to the trademark registrar in your country. Unless you are their trademark lawyer, but, if so, why would you be asking us? From your organization’s position, you release it under CC0 meaning ...


1

Under UK copyright law, copyright in the work published within the lifetime of that author has expired, since the duration of copyright is at most life + 70. The manuscript would, by your report, be the property of Oxford, but the contents of the manuscript are not protected by copyright law.


1

I would recommend writing the author and requesting permission. There's likely not much anyone would do if you refused, but you could certainly lose access to the site, and it sounds like the site is helpful for you. From their TOU: Restrictions on Use of Content If you purchase Content from the Site (including receipt of free Content), you agree ...


1

If a country were to hypothetically set the length of time for a copyright to expire (and thus enter the public domain) to one second, does that make it legal to freely distribute any work of art produced in any other country at any time, within the borders of that country? If in your example you assume the country is not subject to any treaty obligations ...


1

The only elements of such a work that would be protected by copyright are the contemporary creative aspects. That would include (recently) added commentary, concordance or artwork. Presenting a work in a new file format does not constitute a creative addition, so there is no protection for the PDFness of a public domain work.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible